Playing by the rules

The rules of dating and sex as taught today appear to go something like this–you can have sex if you are in love. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) Those rules further say that since kids are going to have sex anyway, we should protect them. Through things like birth control and condoms. (Again, correct me if I’m wrong.)

So when we see this story from the UK of kids (literally) having kids are they not following the lessons of our culture? Just at a younger-than-expected age? With the one major mistake of not having an abortion to conceal the problem, so that adults can’t delude themselves into thinking there is no problem, anymore.

I’m not saying this isn’t crazy and a tragedy and a symptom of social decline.

But I’m losing track of what I’m supposed to be shocked by, these days. I can’t help but think these kids are playing by the rules we give them.

(Anyone recall the discussion in the Ottawa Citizen not too long ago about co-ed sleepovers?)

_________________________

Brigitte can’t help noticing: One paragraph in that story stands out:

Britain has the highest underage pregnancy rate in western Europe, despite channelling substantial resources into sex education for children as young as five. According to the Office for National Statistics, over the past decade 385 girls under the age of 14 have become pregnant, and more than 40 boys under 14 have fathered children; four boys aged 11 have had children in recent years.

So, do you think that means modern sex-ed isn’t working? Nah. Surely the problem is we’re not spending nearly enough showing 3-year-olds how to put on condoms.

_________________________

Rebecca says: I try not to disagree with Andrea in public, since she wields the blogging whip without mercy, but I don’t think this is accurate:

The rules of dating and sex as taught today appear to go something like this–you can have sex if you are in love.”

I think this is largely true for people over thirty or so, although this is the demographic that loved Sex and the City, a show which revered the zipless encounter.If we’re talking about teens and university students, though, a fair chunk of that population operates by different mores, more along the lines of “you can have sex if you want to.”There are some generally accepted rules: it should be consensual, it’s not cool for guys to drug girls to get them in bed, it’s not cool for girls to lie about being on the pill, and most of all, thou shalt not judge those who have recreational sex, for who are you to judge?

I think this has serious consequences for unplanned pregnancies and how we cope with them.People have always had premarital sex, and teen pregnancies have always been with us (albeit in much smaller numbers.)But in earlier generations, one generally had sex with someone one knew well, cared for, and could imagine being married to, so an unplanned pregnancy followed by a quick and discreet wedding was the logical outcome.In an era in which anonymous sex is commonplace, this traditional solution doesn’t work nearly so well.

_____________________

Andrea to Rebecca: Please come and see me in my office at the end of class. Thank you.

I stand corrected. I thought there still was some small correlation between love and sex. But now I see I’m wrong. Ah, progress.

Comments

Unfortunately, you are wrong. The rules are actually more like “have sex anytime with anyone you want, because sex is an amoral activity” (amoral= without moral significance, not to be confused with “immoral”).

Faulty ‘sex education’ begins with faulty starting points.
1. Students are ‘naturally’ oriented to sexual activity. Some proponents would argue pre – kindergarten. This is a presupposition for which there is highly suspect research. On the other hand there is quite a bit of research that shows cultural encouragement is the factor that explains sexual activity in young people.
2. The idea that students are capable of making ‘healthy’ choices and information is all they need. Research on adolescent brain development shows that young people are not capable of processing the information. It is sobering to note that adolescents can not process ‘fear’ and this may explain ‘war’ medals are won largely by those under 22 years of age. Young people, being young, are not yet fully developed so even if they get ‘all’ the pertinent information, which they don’t especially in ‘sex education’ with respect to fetal development and abortion consequences, they can not process the information and thus can not truly make a ‘healthy’ choice.

These two starting points may be summed up as a faulty ontological statement about the nature of young people. It is not surprising then that we have the hurtful realities in young peoples’ lives. This contention begs what would be an appropriate ontological statement. I suggest acknowledging that young people are developing persons who are need of supportive structures that can facilitate their becoming responsible individuals and carry them to when they can truly make healthy choices.

Yes, young people (adolescents) are not always capable of making “healthy” choices. That is where they need parents to stand by and watch and guide and educate. To be aware about what is affecting their children’s lives and to step in and protect. No institution or counselor or “society” can replace that.

So the state of the family and it’s functioning or rather malfunctioning is the question here.

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page.Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.